Have alarmist climate models been proven fatally flawed?

[Geckko]

I am reposting this.

This is a discussion of a new piece of peer review research. It does not belong in other thread. Do not touch,



Above is a panel of output from 12 global climate models that are cited by the IPCC (in the Assessment Report 4). They are cross plots between:

x-axis: sea surface temperature anomalies
y-axis: outgoing radiation

The importance of this relationship is that it is an indicator of types of feedback we should see in our climate as CO2 increases, namely:

1. A positive relationship would indicate positive feedback, where initial warming from increased CO2 heats up oceans, which would be associated with less outgoing radiation, which would enhance global warming.
2. A negative relationship would be the reverse - negative feedback, with an increased amount of energy escaping, helping to cool the earth and offset the initial CO2 effect.

11 of the panels show a negative relationship (increased sea surface temperatures are associated with lower levels of outgoing radiation from the planet) - i.e support the more alarmist conclusion #1.

Only one panel shows a postive relationship (larger amounts of outgoing radiation associated with higher sea surface temperatures) - i.e. suport the less alarmist conclusion #2.

If the 11 panels are correct (the consensus?), then, all other things being equal, we should be more alarmed about global warming. If the outlier panel is correct, all other things being equal, we should be less concerned about global warming.

So the question is this. Which conclusion is the one upheld and promoted by the IPCC and the "Consensus"? Conclusion number 1, or conclusion number 2?

<Mod> This topic is being discussed here. </Mod>